n8 Heckes v. Sapp, supra, 229 Cal.App.2d 549, held that section 580b of the Code of Civil Procedure did not bar an action against the guarantors of a purchase money note secured by a junior deed of trust after the holders of the senior deed of trust nonjudicially foreclosed the security. The court discussed the purposes of section 580b as delineated by the cases of Bargioni v. Hill, 59 Cal.2d 121 [28 Cal.Rptr. 321, 378 P.2d 593], and Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino, supra, 59 Cal.2d 35, and concluded that those purposes would not be served by relieving a guarantor of personal liability. The court also relied upon Professor Hetland's article, Deficiency Judgment Limitations in California -- A New Judicial Approach, 51 Cal.L.Rev. 1, 25-26, stating, "The argument for guarantor deficiency protection does not lie in the possibility that the guarantor could enforce the obligation against the principal and thus obviate the antideficiency legislation; such a possibility does not exist. The courts consistently strike down schemes aimed at avoiding the deficiency legislation by illusory changes in form. A flimsy avoidance device based upon an intermediate surety would have no chance of success." Professor Hetland cites no authority for his broad statement. He does not purport to deal with the situation in which the enforcement of a guarantee is not simply an "illusory" change in form.
* * *